You are on page 1of 8

Teacher Collaboration in Secondary

Schools
CenterFocus Number 2 / December 1993

Morton Inger

Introduction. Most of the current major educational reforms call for extensive,
meaningful teacher collaboration. Two of the reforms--tech prep and the integration of
vocational and academic education--attempt to dissolve the dichotomy between academic
study and preparation for work; in these reforms, teacher collaboration is essential:
Academic and vocational teachers are expected to work together to alter the curriculum
and pedagogy within subjects, make connections between subjects, and explore new
relationships between the school and the world of work.

By and large, however, teacher collaboration is a departure from existing norms, and, in
most schools, teachers are colleagues in name only. They work out of sight and sound of
one another, plan and prepare their lessons and materials alone, and struggle on their own
to solve their instructional, curricular, and management problems.

Yet some schools foster substantial collegial relationships among teachers, and teacher
collaboration produces significant benefits--for students, for the teachers, and for the
school. Aside from the exceptional amount of teacher collegiality, there is nothing unique
about these schools. Some are small, some are large, some are in rural areas, and some
are urban, and they rely on ordinary budgets. The difference between these exceptional
schools and the others appears to be organizational.

It is not clear from the research how the initial decision to collaborate is made. The
general pressure to reform schools and the specific pressure of the Perkins Act, which
focused on the integration of vocational and academic education, have created the
environment for collaboration to take place.

The Benefits of Teacher Collaboration


Although the results are not uniformly good, teachers who have worked together see
substantial improvements in student achievement, behavior, and attitude. Teachers in a
junior high school traced their students' remarkable gains in math achievement and the
virtual elimination of classroom behavior problems to the revisions in curriculum, testing,
and placement procedures they had achieved working as a group. In schools where
teachers work collaboratively, students can sense the program coherence and a
consistency of expectations, which may explain the improved behavior and achievement.

For teachers, collegiality breaks the isolation of the classroom and brings career rewards
and daily satisfactions. It avoids end-of-year burn-out and stimulates enthusiasm. Instead
of grasping for the single dramatic event or the special achievements of a few children as
the main source of pride, teachers are more able to detect and celebrate a pattern of
accomplishments within and across classrooms (Little, 1987, p. 497). Over time, teachers
who work closely together on matters of curriculum and instruction find themselves
better equipped for classroom work. They take considerable satisfaction from
professional relationships that withstand differences in viewpoints and occasional
conflict.

Teacher collegiality avoids the sink-or-swim, trial-and-error mode that beginning teachers
usually face. It brings experienced and beginning teachers closer together to reinforce the
competence and confidence of the beginners.

The complexities introduced by a new curriculum or by the need to refine an existing


curriculum are challenging. Teacher teamwork makes these complex tasks more
manageable, stimulates new ideas, and promotes coherence in a school's curriculum and
instruction. Together, teachers have the organizational skills and resources to attempt
innovations that would exhaust the energy, skill, or resources of an individual teacher.
The conclusions that one draws from the experiences of closely orchestrated, task-
oriented groups in schools are consistent with conclusions drawn from other studies of
organization: The accomplishments of a proficient and well-organized group are widely
considered to be greater than the accomplishments of isolated individuals (Little, 1987, p.
496).

Thus, schools benefit from teacher collaboration in several ways:

• Through formal and informal training sessions, study groups, and conversations
about teaching, teachers and administrators get the opportunity to get smarter
together.
• Teachers are better prepared to support one another's strengths and accommodate
weaknesses. Working together, they reduce their individual planning time while
greatly increasing the available pool of ideas and materials.
• Schools become better prepared and organized to examine new ideas, methods,
and materials. The faculty becomes adaptable and self-reliant.
• Teachers are organized to ease the strain of staff turnover, both by providing
systematic professional assistance to beginners and by explicitly socializing all
newcomers, including veteran teachers, to staff values, traditions, and resources.

Barriers to Generic Collaboration


Nonetheless, teacher collaboration is rare. There are substantial barriers to teacher
collaboration, and the barriers are of many kinds.

Norms of Privacy

A school faculty is an assemblage of entrepreneurial individuals. Teachers see each other


in odd moments before the school day begins, between periods, at lunch, and in
occasional after-school meetings. (Some teachers remain in their classrooms the entire
day, even at lunch.) More formally, they see one another during an assigned preparation
period. The autonomy of the teacher is grounded in norms of privacy and non-
interference. Most teachers feel that other teachers are none of my business and expect to
supply advice to other teachers only when asked. So high a value is placed on autonomy
that veteran teachers with strongly held and well-grounded views on effective teaching
refrain from offering advice, except when asked, even to beginning teachers.

Subject Affiliation and Departmental Organization

Most secondary schools are organized by subject matter, and most teachers view
themselves as subject matter specialists. The subject gives teachers a frame of reference,
a professional identity, and a social community, all of which are reinforced by the
teachers' preparation, state curriculum frameworks, standardized test protocols, textbook
design, university admission requirements, and teacher licensing requirements.

Working within departments organized by subject, teachers affiliate with others in the
same field in professional associations and informal networks. Inevitably, the privacy in
which teachers work--the insularity of the classroom--sustains teachers' stereotypes
regarding the nature and importance of subjects other than their own. Thus, the capacity
of teachers to pursue new curricular and organizational forms is limited not only by their
relative isolation from one another in the school day, but also by the insularity of subject
and departmental boundaries. Given these barriers, teachers have scant basis, opportunity,
or reason for meaningful collaboration with teachers in other departments.

Barriers Between Vocational and Academic Teachers


In addition to the generic barriers, a more specific set of barriers stands between
vocational and academic teachers. In most comprehensive high schools, vocational and
academic education are two separate worlds, and an us versus them mentality often
prevails. In some ways, they are not even members of the same professional community;
academic and vocational teachers are separated physically, socially, organizationally, and
educationally. This is, of course, not true in all schools, but it is the norm, and it is a
pervasive condition. Moreover, the separation is embedded in habitual ways of thought
and action.

Status Differences

Academic disciplines have higher status, command greater institutional respect, and
compete more successfully for resources. Vocational education and its teachers are on the
social and educational periphery, not connected to the central purposes and priorities of
the comprehensive schools in which they work. In practice, vocational education has
become the schools' safety valve, absorbing students designated as remedial or at risk.

The status differences between vocational and academic teachers are sustained by the
value attached to the two different student bodies: The value placed on the preparation of
the college-bound sets the standard, marginalizing the non-college-bound and their
teachers and curricula. Teachers who cultivated a craft because it held genuine appeal for
them, and who entered teaching in the hope of finding students with similar inclinations,
now find themselves viewed not as skilled craftspeople but as caretakers of marginal
students (Little, 1992, p. 29). Their students are viewed by almost everyone as
academically marginal, not as work-oriented.

Departmental Walls

The formal organization of the school and the patterns of isolation or involvement that
develop among colleagues reinforce the separation between vocational and academic
teachers. Professional affiliations extend beyond the school walls, as teachers participate
in activities defined by disciplinary interests. The departmentalization and subject-matter
affiliations--and the walls they erect--are sustained not only by the dispositions of
individuals but also by a range of policies and practices, including university admission
requirements, that affect the way teachers think about curricula, the needs of students,
pedagogy, and the purpose of education.

Physical Separation

The social and organizational isolation of most vocational teachers is exacerbated by the
physical separation and programmatic fragmentation in secondary schools. The two
worlds are not interdependent; that is, in the regular conduct of their daily work, they
have no compelling reason to try to collaborate with one another. In addition, they have
limited opportunity to collaborate even if they want to. Vocational facilities are often on
the edges of a sprawling campus, or otherwise at a distance from academic classes. Often,
there is no single space that is either large enough to hold the disparate teaching groups or
congenial enough to attract them.

Teacher Collaboration: What Do They Do?


Despite the obstacles to collaboration between vocational and academic teachers, there
are grounds for optimism: First, both groups of teachers share an orientation toward good
work habits and related skills such as punctuality and ability to understand and follow
directions. Second, both vocational and academic teachers aspire to cultivate students'
capacities for complex reasoning and problem- solving. Further, the boundaries and
divisions are fundamentally at odds with values central to public education, and it is a
commitment to deeper values that enables some schools and their teachers to bridge
subject and departmental boundaries.

Meaningful collaboration is taking place in some schools. The extent of the collaboration
ranges from a basic stage, where schools simply attempt to improve the academic skills
of vocational students by incorporating academic content into vocational courses, to the
highest level, where occupational clusters wholly replace traditional academic and
vocational departments.
The nature of cooperative efforts, that is, what teachers actually do, deepens and expands
as the level of integration evolves. The relationships often begin with the two groups of
teachers simply learning about one another, offering to help or asking for help, or
providing in-service development activities for one another. At the next stage, vocational
and academic teachers begin planning together and sharing information about their
students and what they teach them. At more advanced stages, vocational and academic
teachers assist with one another's instruction, carefully dovetail instruction between
courses, and, ultimately, coordinate instruction.

It takes time to overcome years of habit, thought, and organizational separation. The first
efforts reveal the gulf between the two worlds. Some vocational teachers say that it is the
first time they have even met some of the academic teachers in their school. Many
vocational teachers feel inadequate to teach academic skills, and feel that this instruction
should be the job of the academic teachers. Academic teachers feel that the vocational
teachers do not appreciate the difficulty of teaching in academic settings. Boundary
protection becomes prominent: Vocational teachers say, The students need to know this
before they get to us. Academic teachers say, Don't tell me how to teach my subject.

But the process of working together enables the two faculties to understand one another
better. When they begin to plan together, they begin to feel interdependent. These initial
efforts lead the teachers to realize that they need to dovetail their instruction to ensure
that they are reinforcing one another's teaching.

Teacher Collaboration: What Works?


Observers and interviewers have seen a wide range of cooperative activities in which
both academic and vocational teachers are engaged. Considering all the barriers, what
makes this possible? In short, what works? Support for teacher collegiality and
collaboration has six dimensions.

1. Symbolic endorsements and rewards that place value on cooperative work. The
schools where teachers work together best are those in which the principal and
other leaders convey their faith in the power of interdisciplinary teams to make
the school better for students. Vague slogans in favor of collaboration are
ineffective; the principal and other leaders must spell out in some detail what they
think collaboration means.
2. School-level organization of assignments and leadership. School-level
reorganization into teams stimulates cooperative work, but does not guarantee it.
For such teams to be effective in encouraging cooperative work, leadership must
be broadly distributed among teachers and administrators. For example, in some
schools, teachers are given reduced teaching loads in exchange for leading
curriculum development work.
3. Latitude given to teachers for influence on crucial matters of curriculum and
instruction. Teachers' investment in team planning appears to rest heavily on the
latitude they have to make decisions in crucial areas of curriculum, materials
selection, student assignments, instructional grouping, and the assessment of
student progress. Teaming for the sake of teaming leads to disillusionment;
teaming must be about matters of compelling importance.
4. Time. Common planning periods, regularly scheduled team or subject-area
meetings, and released time for collaborative work all support cooperative work
among teachers. The opportunities for collaborative work are either enhanced or
eroded by the master schedule.
5. Training and assistance. Since it is a radical departure from the usual, cooperative
work places unfamiliar and pressing demands on teachers. Teacher work groups
succeed in part by mastering specific skills and by developing explicit agreements
to govern their work together. Task-related training and assistance bolsters the
confidence of teachers to work with one another outside the classroom.
6. Material support. The quality and availability of reference texts and other
materials, adequate copying equipment, consultants on selected problems, and
other forms of human and material support appear to be crucial contributors to
teachers' ability and willingness to work together successfully.

Specific Recommendations

Aside from the broad principles laid out above, researchers and practitioners have noted
concrete steps that can encourage teacher collaboration. The strategies listed below have
been used to achieve the integration of vocational and academic education at three
Southern Region Education Board/Vocational Education Consortium pilot sites. (One is a
comprehensive high school, the other two are vocational centers serving four high
schools.)

• Involve both vocational and academic teachers in the development of integration


goals and objectives.
• Publicize to students, parents, and community the purposes and anticipated
outcomes of the collaborative efforts of the teachers.
• Provide for staff development that is free from the distractions of the day-to-day
routine of school operations and involves all academic and vocational teachers.
• Provide open, unstructured time in a relaxed atmosphere for vocational and
academic teachers to share.
• Move classroom locations of both vocational and academic teachers so that they
will have more ready access to one another.
• Have vocational teachers share work completed by students with academic
teachers so that the academic teachers can determine what skills are used in
vocational classes.
• Have vocational and academic teachers share competency lists so they can learn
the basic competencies the others teach or need students to know.
• Provide time for vocational and academic teachers to observe and experience
hands-on activities in each others' classes.
• Provide adequate planning time for academic teachers to incorporate real-world
examples in their instruction. This planning time should be shared with vocational
teachers.
• Have vocational and academic teachers work in pairs to assure that students are
being taught comparable applications of basic skills. This has the additional
benefit that students can no longer say that the other teacher does not make us do
this.
• Administrators need to set the stage, but teachers need to determine the how to of
these collaborative efforts.
• When vocational and academic teachers share information, small groups of two to
six teachers are better than larger groups. When larger groups meet, sharing of
ideas and planning becomes limited.

Teachers have commented that after working cooperatively they no longer perceived of
themselves as us and them, and that they gained respect for what the others were teaching
and the problems they had in teaching. Academic teachers enjoyed seeing the practical
applications of their instruction. Vocational and academic teachers found that they could
reinforce one another's assignments and often gave joint assignments.

Summary and Conclusion


Serious collaboration--teachers engaging in the rigorous mutual examination of teaching
and learning--is rare, and where it exists, it is fragile. Yet it can and does occur, and the
enthusiasm of teachers about their collaborations is persuasive. When schools are
organized to support it, the advantages of collegial action are varied and substantial.
When teachers work as colleagues, it produces greater coherence and integration to the
daily work of teaching. Further, it equips individual teachers, groups of teachers, and
their schools for steady improvement. In short, it helps to organize the school as an
environment for learning to teach.

Two fundamental conditions appear to be crucial to joint action among teachers:


interdependence and opportunity. The key practices of colleagues are most likely to make
a difference where they are an integral, inescapable part of day-to-day work. Teachers'
main motivation and reward for involvement with one another will be found in the work
of teaching. To the extent they find themselves truly interdependent with one another to
manage and reap the rewards of teaching, joint work will be worth the investment of time
and other resources. To the extent that teachers' success and satisfaction can be achieved
independently, the motivation to collaborate is weakened.

And joint action cannot occur where it is impossible or prohibitively costly in


organizational, political, or personal terms. Schedules, staff assignments, and access to
resources must be made conducive to shared work. If teachers are to work often and
fruitfully as colleagues, school policy must solidly support it. The value that is placed on
shared work must be both said and demonstrated. The opportunity for it must be
prominent in the schedule. The purpose for it must be compelling and the task sufficiently
challenging. The material resources and human assistance must be adequate. And the
accomplishments of individuals and groups must be recognized and celebrated.

This synthesis is drawn from the following publications:


Finch, C.R., Schmidt, B.J., and Faulkner, S.L. (1992, November). Using professional
development to facilitate vocational and academic education integration: A practitioners'
guide. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of
California, Berkeley.

Little, J.W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators'


handbook: A research perspective (491-510). New York: Longman.

Little, J.W. (1990, Summer). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in
teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91 (4) (508-536).

Little, J.W. (1992, November). Two worlds: Vocational and academic teachers in
comprehensive high schools. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education, University of California, Berkeley.

Little, J.W. (in press). Stretching the subject: The subject organization of high schools
and the transformation of work education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education, University of California, Berkeley.

Little, J.W., and Threatt, S.M. (1992, June). Work on the margins: The experience of
vocational teachers in comprehensive high schools. Berkeley, CA: National Center for
Research in Vocational Education, University of California, Berkeley.

Schmidt, B.J. (1992, August). What works: When teachers integrate vocational and
academic education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education, University of California, Berkeley.

Schmidt, B.J. (1992, October). Collaborative efforts between vocational and academic
teachers: Strategies that facilitate and hinder the efforts. Berkeley, CA: National Center
for Research in Vocational Education, University of California, Berkeley.

Schmidt, B.J., Finch, C.R., and Faulkner, S.L. (1992, December). Helping teachers to
understand their roles in integrating vocational and academic education: A practitioners'
guide. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of
California, Berkeley.

Schmidt, B.J., Finch, C.R., and Faulkner, S.L. (1992, December). Teachers' roles in the
integration of vocational and academic education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for
Research in Vocational Education, University of California, Berkeley.

Morton Inger is a staff writer for the Institute on Education and the Economy, and the
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.